Deborah S. Usinger

Association Between Choice of Radical Prostatectomy, External Beam Radiotherapy, Brachytherapy, or Active Surveillance and Patient-Reported Quality of Life Among Men With Localized Prostate Cancer.

Importance Patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer have to decide among treatment strategies that may differ in their likelihood of adverse effects. Objective To compare quality of life (QOL) after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy, and brachytherapy vs active surveillance. Design, Setting, and Participants Population-based prospective cohort of 1141 men (57% participation among eligible men) with newly diagnosed prostate cancer were enrolled from January 2011 through June 2013 in collaboration with the North Carolina Central Cancer Registry. Median time from diagnosis to enrollment was 5 weeks, and all men were enrolled with written informed consent prior to treatment. Final follow-up date for current analysis was September 9, 2015. Exposures Treatment with radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy, brachytherapy, or active surveillance. Main Outcomes and Measures Quality of life using the validated instrument Prostate Cancer Symptom Indices was assessed at baseline (pretreatment) and 3, 12, and 24 months after treatment. The instrument contains 4 domains—sexual dysfunction, urinary obstruction and irritation, urinary incontinence, and bowel problems—each scored from 0 (no dysfunction) to 100 (maximum dysfunction). Propensity-weighted mean domain scores were compared between each treatment group vs active surveillance at each time point. Results Of 1141 enrolled men, 314 pursued active surveillance (27.5%), 469 radical prostatectomy (41.1%), 249 external beam radiotherapy (21.8%), and 109 brachytherapy (9.6%). After propensity weighting, median age was 66 to 67 years across groups, and 77% to 80% of participants were white. Across groups, propensity-weighted mean baseline scores were 41.8 to 46.4 for sexual dysfunction, 20.8 to 22.8 for urinary obstruction and irritation, 9.7 to 10.5 for urinary incontinence, and 5.7 to 6.1 for bowel problems. Compared with active surveillance, mean sexual dysfunction scores worsened by 3 months for patients who received radical prostatectomy (36.2 [95% CI, 30.4-42.0]), external beam radiotherapy (13.9 [95% CI, 6.7-21.2]), and brachytherapy (17.1 [95% CI, 7.8-26.6]). Compared with active surveillance at 3 months, worsened urinary incontinence was associated with radical prostatectomy (33.6 [95% CI, 27.8-39.2]); acute worsening of urinary obstruction and irritation with external beam radiotherapy (11.7 [95% CI, 8.7-14.8]) and brachytherapy (20.5 [95% CI, 15.1-25.9]); and worsened bowel symptoms with external beam radiotherapy (4.9 [95% CI, 2.4-7.4]). By 24 months, mean scores between treatment groups vs active surveillance were not significantly different in most domains. Conclusions and Relevance In this cohort of men with localized prostate cancer, each treatment strategy was associated with distinct patterns of adverse effects over 2 years. These findings can be used to promote treatment decisions that incorporate individual preferences.

Impact of comorbidity on health‐related quality of life after prostate cancer treatment: combined analysis of two prospective cohort studies

To improve and individualise estimates of treatment outcomes for men diagnosed with prostate cancer, we examined the impact of baseline comorbidity on health‐related quality of life (HRQL) outcomes in an analysis of two pooled, prospective cohort studies.

Comparison of Patient Report and Medical Records of Comorbidities: Results From a Population-Based Cohort of Patients With Prostate Cancer

Importance The comorbid conditions of patients with cancer affect treatment decisions, which in turn affect survival and health-related quality-of-life outcomes. Comparative effectiveness research studies must account for these conditions via medical record abstraction or patient report. Objective To examine the agreement between medical records and patient reports in assessing comorbidities. Design, Setting, and Participants Patient-reported information and medical records were prospectively collected as part of the North Carolina Prostate Cancer Comparative Effectiveness & Survivorship Study, a population-based cohort of 881 patients with newly diagnosed localized prostate cancer enrolled in the North Carolina Central Cancer Registry from January 1, 2011, through June 30, 2013. The presence or absence of 20 medical conditions was compared based on patient report vs abstraction of medical records. Main Outcomes and Measures Agreement between patient reports and medical records for each condition was assessed using the &kgr; statistic. Subgroup analyses examined differences in &kgr; statistics based on age, race, marital status, educational level, and income. Logistic regression models for each condition examined factors associated with higher agreement. Results A total of 881 patients participated in the study (median age, 65 years; age range, 41-80 years; 633 white [71.9%]). In 16 of 20 conditions, there was agreement between patient reports and medical records for more than 90% of patients; agreement was lowest for hyperlipidemia (68%; &kgr; = 0.36) and arthritis (66%; &kgr; = 0.14). On multivariable analysis, older age (≥70 years old) was significantly associated with lower agreement for myocardial infarction (odds ratio [OR], 0.31; 95% CI, 0.12-0.80), cerebrovascular disease (OR, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.01-0.78), coronary artery disease (OR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.20-0.67), arrhythmia (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.25-0.79), and kidney disease (OR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.06-0.52). Race and educational level were not significantly associated with &kgr; in 18 of 19 modeled conditions. Conclusions and Relevance Overall, patient reporting provides information similar to medical record abstraction without significant differences by patient race or educational level. Use of patient reports, which are less costly than medical record audits, is a reasonable approach for observational comparative effectiveness research.

Design of the North Carolina Prostate Cancer Comparative Effectiveness and Survivorship Study (NC ProCESS)

The North Carolina Prostate Cancer Comparative Effectiveness & Survivorship Study (NC ProCESS) was designed in collaboration with stakeholders to compare the effectiveness of different treatment options for localized prostate cancer. Using the Rapid Case Ascertainment system of the North Carolina Central Cancer Registry, 1,419 patients (57% of eligible) with newly-diagnosed localized prostate cancer were enrolled from January 2011 to June 2013, on average 5 weeks after diagnosis. All participants were enrolled prior to treatment and this population-based cohort is sociodemographically diverse. Prospective follow-up continues to collect data on treatments received, disease control, survival and patient-reported outcomes. This study highlights several important considerations regarding stakeholder involvement, study design and generalizability regarding comparative effectiveness research in prostate cancer.

Symptom and function profiles of men with localized prostate cancer: Symptom and Function Profiles

Men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer seek information on how treatment options may impact their health‐related quality of life (HRQOL). The authors used latent profile analysis (LPA) to group men according to their symptom burden and functional status and to identify patient characteristics associated with each HRQOL profile.